Question about anti-armstrong fanboys

[Dr. Maserati]

I think that is the type of conspiracy theory that people resent. The three tours that took place whilst LA was retired were not cleaner in anyway. We obviously had the Landis thing in 06, the Rasmussen and Vino scandals in 07, and in 2008 the cera scandals. Apart from one test during this tour where inspectors were apparently asked to wait a little while due the the early timing, how can you justify the statement that suddenly all the standards have gone to pot just because LA came back? We've now got blood bio passports! It really is silly to pretend LA's come back has effected the whole nature of the sport.

The fact is, love him or hate him, the tour is always more exciting when Armstrong is involved.

What had we at this years Tour??? As you say think about it!
I have mentioned this before - Patrick Clerc who was firmly anti-doping was removed just after LA announced his return. Even LA has admitted that if Clerc was present he would not be allowed start the Tour.

But if you want to debate this point start a thread in the Clinic!

 

[Anonymous]

One point I am curious about in your points is the evidence and innocence part.
You have put Rabobank as your 'dirtiest team', does that not imply that you share the same skepticism of the doping controls that I do? If so does that not mean that when an argument is made about the 'innocence' of an athlete because they have not been sanctioned makes it irrelevant to whether they have or have not taken PEDs?

That is why I use other criteria to establish whether I believe in a rider or not.

What I said about Rabobank was a bit of fun, and not intended to be entirely serious.

The poll is an ordinal structure, and all I meant was that if i had to assume all teams are dirty, which one do I think is the dirtiest, then I said Rabo. Rather than saying, unconditionally, Rabo are taking PEDs, which is more of an objective statement, whereas the poll was subjective.

About the skepticism. I am not a fool. I know people can get around the testing procedures given what Kohl has said in the past few months. Again, I can't stress enough that I know my argument has flaws, but for me personally, I cannot objectively accuse someone of being guilty in the way that many posters in this thread are. I think there is a clear grey area between innocence and guilty. As such, I believe that perhaps my 'grey area' is leaning towards innocence, whereas some other poster's "grey area" leans towards guilt.

Hmmm, that sounds wierd, but i'll try explaining it another way. Think of a number line between 0 and 1. 0 = innocent, 100%. 1 = guilty, 100%.

Clearly, some cyclists in question are not at the zero point, or, the one point. They is somewhere between zero and one, or, the "grey area". So hypothetical, perhaps if someone was at the 0.75 mark.
Obviously closer to the guilty side than the innocent side, but perhaps, my intuition behind innocent is, say, if someone passes the 0.85 mark, i will assume guilt. And perhaps, another individual will have the intuition that, if someone passes the 0.6 mark, I will assume guilt.

So between the two of us, from 0.6 to 0.85, I assume innocence, the other guy assumes guilt. This is what I mean by the grey area - I hope that example wasn't too wierd, it's how I often picture things in the work I do. Clearly the numbers are normalised to 1 to make it more intuitive, but I guess this is how my insight into innocent works, so I guess, after gathering all the evidence, and considering all the evidence, I will assume innocence, whereas another perfectly rational person will assume guilt

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Reading Mountain Goats and PMG76s posts to me shows frustration - and I think it is not so much the subject matter but the implications of being associated to being either one side or the other.

Sometimes its the subject matter. The realists are frustrated that the system is broken, and take that frustration out on the optimists, who are seen as a barrier to solving the doping problem by denying that it exists. OTOH, the most extreme 'optimists' seem to have a personal need to believe in miracles, and the death knell of debate tolls again. Either way the ad hominem is counter productive to 'winning friends and influencing people'.

Don't have an easy answer, but I'm currently working on a method involving boring everyone to sleep by asking endless poorly expressed technical question. It's showing real promise

 

[oldschoolnik]

+1 +1

+1 Nice summation of my own thoughts and feelings on LA.

+1 +1 - pretty much sums it up. I too admit I jumped up and down and yelled stuff at the TV when lance attacked and won on Sesstriere - talk about a fanboy! But then over the years I read and read and read about all evidence against him...

I'll just add that when someone gets up and says " I am sorry some people can't believe in miracles..." meaning some people accuse him of doping - can't believe the myth of his winning the TDF after suffering from cancer...when the overwhelming evidence says he cheated just like most top pro cyclists of his era - he deserves any hate that people can throw at him.

Shame on him I say...

Nik

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What I said about Rabobank was a bit of fun, and not intended to be entirely serious.

The poll is an ordinal structure, and all I meant was that if i had to assume all teams are dirty, which one do I think is the dirtiest, then I said Rabo. Rather than saying, unconditionally, Rabo are taking PEDs, which is more of an objective statement, whereas the poll was subjective.

About the skepticism. I am not a fool. I know people can get around the testing procedures given what Kohl has said in the past few months. Again, I can't stress enough that I know my argument has flaws, but for me personally, I cannot objectively accuse someone of being guilty in the way that many posters in this thread are. I think there is a clear grey area between innocence and guilty. As such, I believe that perhaps my 'grey area' is leaning towards innocence, whereas some other poster's "grey area" leans towards guilt.

Hmmm, that sounds wierd, but i'll try explaining it another way. Think of a number line between 0 and 1. 0 = innocent, 100%. 1 = guilty, 100%.

Clearly, some cyclists in question are not at the zero point, or, the one point. They is somewhere between zero and one, or, the "grey area". So hypothetical, perhaps if someone was at the 0.75 mark.
Obviously closer to the guilty side than the innocent side, but perhaps, my intuition behind innocent is, say, if someone passes the 0.85 mark, i will assume guilt. And perhaps, another individual will have the intuition that, if someone passes the 0.6 mark, I will assume guilt.

So between the two of us, from 0.6 to 0.85, I assume innocence, the other guy assumes guilt. This is what I mean by the grey area - I hope that example wasn't too wierd, it's how I often picture things in the work I do. Clearly the numbers are normalised to 1 to make it more intuitive, but I guess this is how my insight into innocent works, so I guess, after gathering all the evidence, and considering all the evidence, I will assume innocence, whereas another perfectly rational person will assume guilt

Apologies - I had fired off my last post to you without taking in to account your honesty that some of your arguments have some obvious flaws.

I can appreciate that the way you go about appropriating guilt or innocence is different to mine. I can also understand peoples reluctance to accept that their favorite rider may have used PED's to achieve their success - as I too was let down by all the heroes I had followed in the 80's and 90's.
We have seen the way many posters have passionately defended their favorite riders - like Cadel, Contador, Wiggins etc

One point I have aways found interesting and that is often missed, is when posters debate the who is/ who isn't clean - whether it is a team or individual, is that this highlights the complete lack of faith we - the fans of the Cycling - have in our sporting authorities in their Anti-Doping efforts.
To me that is the true shame of where this magnificent sport stands in 2009.

 

[Race Radio]

I think that is the type of conspiracy theory that people resent. The three tours that took place whilst LA was retired were not cleaner in anyway. We obviously had the Landis thing in 06, the Rasmussen and Vino scandals in 07, and in 2008 the cera scandals. Apart from one test during this tour where inspectors were apparently asked to wait a little while due the the early timing, how can you justify the statement that suddenly all the standards have gone to pot just because LA came back? We've now got blood bio passports! It really is silly to pretend LA's come back has effected the whole nature of the sport.

The fact is, love him or hate him, the tour is always more exciting when Armstrong is involved.

It should be no surprise to any observer that there was better testing once the WADA code came into force late 2004. Surely we can all agree that the UCI did little to address the issue prior to 2005.

 

[Galic Ho]

C'mon, you're kidding right? You have misread all my posts if you believe i cannot think for myself. I'm not a robot, i've repeatedly stated my reasons for believing why I believe in, and the rationale for doing so. You're just being silly saying that I don't think for myself

In regard to not accepting the truth. This is also a misjudgment on your part. Again, I've repeatedly said that I completely understand all sides of the argument, which is why i've always said my objective in this forum is to 'defend' armstrong. I am not saying 100% he is innocent. And I certainly don't believe everything he says. I am not saying 100% that I am right. All I'm saying is that there is two sides to the story. When someone posts something about Armstrong, and I feel that this accuses him of something that I personally do not think is entirely correct, I will offer my opinion as to why I think this.

If you think that I cannot think for myself, then all this shows to me is that you've ignored almost everything I have written in this thread. One fundamental thing that I think you have missed is that I have repeatedly said there are flaws in my arguments. I'm not believing what someone has told me, and i'm not a fan boy - just a fan that will defend cyclists when I feel the desire too (that's probably the 8th time I've said this)

Let me get this straight. You deny BroDeals claim that you 'cannot think for yourself' and then state the above, in particular the bold section. If you do understand all sides, evidence and perspectives and granted you are a reasonable person, then you would not be supporting Armstrong. The reasoning is simple, that truth and fairness are more important than the individual. A person who does indeed understand all the evidence would not naturally favour a person who has such a torrid history with truthful representation of their character, habits and practices. But I suspect you know this. We are not talking about a defenseless individual here either, but one of the most influential within the sport of cycling. Why then defend Armstrong? Your motives lie elsewhere and I suspect the spectacle and glitz of the Armstrong train caught you, like many others, up in its wake and you forgot to get off when the stench arose. People will die to protect an ideal they believe in, even if they mistaknely believe it to be the truth.

Now if you'd like to respond and claim you have a brain that isn't shorting out, feel free to reply. But don't contradict yourself in future and waste space...repeated offenses are known as trolling.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

If you do understand all sides, evidence and perspectives and granted you are a reasonable person, then you would not be supporting Armstrong.

What's the point of stating this opinion?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Is Hugh Januss your real name cuz you must a been teased when it said quickly like "huge anus".

Wow, you're right, that never came up before. I guess you are more clever than anyone else.

 

[Galic Ho]

Wow another genius. If you do in fact watch cycling and have a brain my entire comment would have made sense. Mountain goat was acting in a contradictory manner by claiming their initial reason to post on LA threads was in defense of the man whilst holding all or most of the accepted knowledge related to Armstrong. A person cannot do that and then claim to defend him, because of the reasons I stated. It holds no apparent logic other than they are defending him because they are a fan. My comment was an opinion, but an accurate and insightful one.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Wow another genius. If you do in fact watch cycling and have a brain my entire comment would have made sense. Mountain goat was acting in a contradictory manner by claiming their initial reason to post on LA threads was in defense of the man whilst holding all or most of the accepted knowledge related to Armstrong. A person cannot do that and then claim to defend him, because of the reasons I stated. It holds no apparent logic other than they are defending him because they are a fan. My comment was an opinion, but an accurate and insightful one.

Your comment made perfect sense, and I agree with your opinion. What interests me is what motivated you to state it. I speculated just up-thread about what motivates people to make ad hominem comments to the forum's incurable 'optimist'........but I can only speculate and I'd like to know. Especially from someone whose posts are generally moderate, and informative, such as yourself.

 

[Anonymous]

Let me get this straight. You deny BroDeals claim that you 'cannot think for yourself' and then state the above, in particular the bold section. If you do understand all sides, evidence and perspectives and granted you are a reasonable person, then you would not be supporting Armstrong. The reasoning is simple, that truth and fairness are more important than the individual. A person who does indeed understand all the evidence would not naturally favour a person who has such a torrid history with truthful representation of their character, habits and practices. But I suspect you know this. We are not talking about a defenseless individual here either, but one of the most influential within the sport of cycling. Why then defend Armstrong? Your motives lie elsewhere and I suspect the spectacle and glitz of the Armstrong train caught you, like many others, up in its wake and you forgot to get off when the stench arose. People will die to protect an ideal they believe in, even if they mistaknely believe it to be the truth.

Now if you'd like to respond and claim you have a brain that isn't shorting out, feel free to reply. But don't contradict yourself in future and waste space...repeated offenses are known as trolling.

Firstly, I'm getting tired of repeating myself here, as I sure most people understand my reasons, but disagree with me, which is fine by me. For the sake of the forum, I will clarify this with you since you want to get it straight, but please dont ask the same questions to me that ive already clarified many times - becoz that is wasting space, and making me look bad for continuely offering my opinion when people want a clarification.

The bold part, of course I will deny someone accusing me of being unable to think for myself. Everytime I write something in these forums, it's using my own brain to formulate a different kind of logic, and of course, I have stated that there are flaws in my arguments, just as there are flaws in everyones arguments, i've stated this over and over, so this is the last time I will say it. The reason that i keep clarify these things is becoz a few people are interested in why I defend armstrong, and for the 9th time, this is not because I am a fanboy which everyone keeps saying, I just feel the need to defend against an accusation that I believe is not entirely accurate.

As for the bold and underline part, please do not tell me how I make my choices, and stop assuming I'm a delluded fanboy, as for the 10th time, I am not! As for the part about saying I will die to protect an ideal, are you serious? This is cycling forum, it's hardly the Da Vinci code, I don't take it that seriously. For the 11th time, i'm not a fanboy as you imply, I am defending accusations, becoz everyone one of the armstrong accusations can be viewed from a different angle, and since this is a public forum I feel the need to do this. That's why I defend armstrong. I've never said he is 100% innocent, all I do in the Clinic is point out why the accusations of 100% guilt, do have some kind of a counter argument.

As for the underline part, I am not wasting space, becoz everyone one of my posts has been a direct response to a question for me, or an accusation about me. If you think I'm wasting space, then ignore me, or stop asking me questions that I have clarified over and over and over. As I always say, I dont expect people to agree with me, but I will clarify my thoughts when someone asks, or when someone throws out petty insults about my intelligence (which I suspect you will do after reading this). I'm not trolling when I talk about Armstrong, there's a good definition of trolling in the "Troll Poll" thread if you are unsure what it means, but I think you will find out, that your jibes at me are more closely related to troll activity than my defence of Armstrong.

Since I know 99% of the people disagree with me about Armstrong, I will not post in this thread anymore, unless someone asks me a direct question/clarification. I think I have said enough to contribute to the discussion without resorting to petty insults like some. For the 12th time, I am not a fan boy, just a fan that will defend accusations where I see fit, so all I ask is that people consider my view, and respect my view, even though they fundamentally disagree with it, becoz there are two sides to every coin, and I'm only one of a few offering the side of the coin that is frowned upon. If I can respect the accusations, surely it is reasonable that everyone respects that someone disagrees with you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Firstly, I'm getting tired of repeating myself here, as I sure most people understand my reasons, but disagree with me, which is fine by me. .....

Since I know 99% of the people disagree with me about Armstrong, I will not post in this thread anymore, unless someone asks me a direct question/clarification. I think I have said enough to contribute to the discussion without resorting to petty insults like some. For the 12th time, I am not a fan boy, just a fan that will defend accusations where I see fit, so all I ask is that people consider my view, and respect my view, even though they fundamentally disagree with it, becoz there are two sides to every coin, and I'm only one of a few offering the side of the coin that is frowned upon. If I can respect the accusations, surely it is reasonable that everyone respects that someone disagrees with you.

I have appreciated MtnGoats comments, observations and his honest answers. I have a better understanding of his position and although there are some points that I may not necessarily agree with I can accept his position.

I believe all sides have found some of the posting practices lately quite frustrating and hopefully we have all learned something and can move forward.

It is also noteworthy that we all have different motivations for offering and defending our opinions - and as I said earlier I think there are far more than just the two sides - fanboy or hater - involved in these discussions.

Ultimately I enjoy a good debate, but not the ad hominem attacks that sometimes accompany peoples responses. In fact when i am involved in a proper debate it forces me to research and backup my positions, which I find good as at least the proper and accurate information is in the public domain - after that it is up to the individual to form their opinions using their criteria.

 

[Galic Ho]

Your comment made perfect sense, and I agree with your opinion. What interests me is what motivated you to state it. I speculated just up-thread about what motivates people to make ad hominem comments to the forum's incurable 'optimist'........but I can only speculate and I'd like to know. Especially from someone whose posts are generally moderate, and informative, such as yourself.

Oh fair enough. Sorry about the genius humour. Didn't read your earlier post, that's why the tone in my reply was of a questioning nature. Why did I state what I did? I was scanning some threads, saw Mountain Goat with a number of long posts engaging in debate with BroDeal, amongst others, and almost bypassed the entire section I highlighted. Something jumped out at my subconscious, I stopped and reread the entire comment and realised a section was bogus if the language was taken for its true meaning. Given the content of what MG was debating it seemed to tell me more about his motivations than anything else he had written. Contradictory in nature, but understandable. I guess I just wanted to know if he was willing stepping in the cow pats. Forums remove body language, vocal fluctuations and tone is very hard for some to convey...things that are easy to read and gauge are exponentially harder in cyberland than the real world. I'd have been able to tell much easier in real life, in cyberland I often need an initial comment and then a reply to really gauge the nature of an individuals comments. Now to Mountain Goats reply.

Firstly, I'm getting tired of repeating myself here, as I sure most people understand my reasons, but disagree with me, which is fine by me.

I just wanted to check that you realised you had contradicted yourself in your debate with BroDeal and used the analogy of a reasonable person (happens in law cases all the time) to demonstrate most readers in the clinic would dispute your reasoning.

The bold part, of course I will deny someone accusing me of being unable to think for myself. Everytime I write something in these forums, it's using my own brain to formulate a different kind of logic, and of course, I have stated that there are flaws in my arguments, just as there are flaws in everyones arguments, i've stated this over and over, so this is the last time I will say it. The reason that i keep clarify these things is becoz a few people are interested in why I defend armstrong, and for the 9th time, this is not because I am a fanboy which everyone keeps saying, I just feel the need to defend against an accusation that I believe is not entirely accurate.

Fair enough. I'll take your word on that. Nobody will deny you the right to use your own brain of your own freewill.

As for the bold and underline part, please do not tell me how I make my choices, and stop assuming I'm a delluded fanboy, as for the 10th time, I am not! As for the part about saying I will die to protect an ideal, are you serious? This is cycling forum, it's hardly the Da Vinci code, I don't take it that seriously. For the 11th time, i'm not a fanboy as you imply, I am defending accusations, becoz everyone one of the armstrong accusations can be viewed from a different angle, and since this is a public forum I feel the need to do this. That's why I defend armstrong. I've never said he is 100% innocent, all I do in the Clinic is point out why the accusations of 100% guilt, do have some kind of a counter argument.

Ok here is where it gets dicey. I didn't tell you how to make your choices, I was pointing out that your thinking is slightly different to what most people in the clinic have formed. It is different, but understandable. Perception plays a part and also different knowledge levels. Hence no two identical people/brains and why your stance is different, but not insane or deluded. There is no such thing as percentages of guilt. Any action or behaviour is judged on its real life happening and on that alone. It is judged on an individual basis. For example, did LA use epo in 99? Yes, without a doubt (most on this forum will state). Did he use epo this year? No, but that much is obvious. Did he blood dope this year? We don't know. This last question is not a yes/no, answer. It is unclear but anyone can form an opinion, so speculation naturally occurs. You are either guilty in truth or innocent...opinion of the matter is different.

As for the trolling part, I read the trolling thread, TFF had some great stuff in there. I was again, suggesting you might want to be aware of trolling. Believe me if I were to accuse I would be blunt and come out and say it directly.

 

[bianchigirl]

Personally I prefer the terms 'acolytes' and 'sceptics'.

It strikes me that Armstrong is really the perfect front man for the sport in celebrity obsessed times - a rider with a modicum of talent who, through enhancement, becomes a superstar whilst pretending that the elephant in the room doesn't exist. Style over substance, promoting their brand above all whilst giving a nod to some charitable concern to polish their image.

Nico Mattan is putting up VDB's bikes for sale so that his parents won't have to pay to repatriate his body. Dead, alone, in a hotel room from which his phone and money had been taken, an empty syringe by his body. That tawdriness is the reality of doping for most riders. I once asked a talented young rider who was beating all comers at a French regional level when he would turn pro. He said he wasn't interested as he didn't want to do drugs.

By ignoring the elephant in the room and giving someone like Armstrong a free pass because of his charidee work, we're encouraging more riders to end like VDB and fewer to want to turn pro. If that's good for the sport then heaven help it.

 

[pmcg76]

I think that is the type of conspiracy theory that people resent. The three tours that took place whilst LA was retired were not cleaner in anyway. We obviously had the Landis thing in 06, the Rasmussen and Vino scandals in 07, and in 2008 the cera scandals. Apart from one test during this tour where inspectors were apparently asked to wait a little while due the the early timing, how can you justify the statement that suddenly all the standards have gone to pot just because LA came back? We've now got blood bio passports! It really is silly to pretend LA's come back has effected the whole nature of the sport.

The fact is, love him or hate him, the tour is always more exciting when Armstrong is involved.

This is the perfect example of a quote that really annoys a lot of us. Look at the Best Tour from the last 10 years thread, people are voting for 2003, the year Lance almost lost it. Other than that people are going with 06/07/08.
Why is nobody voting for the other Lance victories if they were so exciting.

Other than 99 for the 'great story' appeal, most of Lances victories were boring because they were so formulatic and dominant. Sure, if you were new to the sport or a huge Lance fan, they may have been exciting but as I said before I couldnt wait until he retired because the race had become so predictable and boring.

As for this year, the race was over after the TTT. A lot of people on here were foaming when we suggested this at the time. The only thing that kept the interest was Lances childish behaviour and seeing how low he could stoop with the pettiness. Nothing to do with the actual racing.

The Tour is not more exciting because Lance is around

 

[bianchigirl]

Sprocket, please explain why Armstrong was allowed to resume competition at the Tour Down Under when he had not then been back in the testing pool for the required 6 months? There's either a rule or there isn't. Now why do you suppose Pat McBent - oops, sorry, McQuaid - waived the rules for his great friend? Would it have anything to do with the $500,000 donation to the UCI? Rather like a 4 year PT licence application seriously considered on the basis of a phantom team led by a manager under contract elsewhere? Is it really surprising that eyebrows are raised when independent observers of the testing procedures raise important and difficult questions?

 

[ggusta]

Firstly, I'm getting tired of repeating myself here, as I sure most people understand my reasons, but disagree with me, which is fine by me. For the sake of the forum, I will clarify this with you since you want to get it straight, but please dont ask the same questions to me that ive already clarified many times - becoz that is wasting space, and making me look bad for continuely offering my opinion when people want a clarification.

I think I have said enough to contribute to the discussion without resorting to petty insults like some. For the 12th time, I am not a fan boy, just a fan that will defend accusations where I see fit, so all I ask is that people consider my view, and respect my view, even though they fundamentally disagree with it, becoz there are two sides to every coin, and I'm only one of a few offering the side of the coin that is frowned upon. If I can respect the accusations, surely it is reasonable that everyone respects that someone disagrees with you.

I don't get it ..... so ....what are you saying...?

 

[nvpacchi]

100% agree, and in the process of trying to lift his PR image, which was successful to nearly all non-cyling fans, he disrespected the rest of the sport by focusing solely on the TDF. No one seems to remember in February that he was going for the Giro and was not even going to ride in the Tour.

As big a celebrity as he is, why not try to further the sport in America by getting people excited about races other than the Tour. He had a great opportunity to open the door for people to experience the World Championships, and the spring classics (which are without doubt the best races in the sport).

Instead he was the center of a huge media driven rivalry that offered nothing but disdain to the sport.

 

[Angliru]

The fact that some people want you to continue posting doesn't mean that others don't want you to stop posting.

So, clearly, you don't do logic.

If I'm not mistaken that is what the "ignore" feature in your User CP is for. By using this feature one can erase annoying posters existence entirely. Novel invention.

 

[Angliru]

But they have no evidence that he's doing anything wrong now, so they dig up his past without bothering to condition it to what the sport's past was like.

Did you miss the references to his behavior during this year's Tour or does that not support your argument? Or maybe that was not "wrong" in your eyes?

 

[Hugh Januss]

I don't get it ..... so ....what are you saying...?

Well I near as I can figure what he is saying is this.
"While there exists a certain amount of very compelling evidence that Armstrong did and does dope I still choose to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he does not dope. However since I do admit that some of that evidence exists that makes me an open minded fan of cycling and not an empty headed fanboy. All of those who choose the conclusion that Armstrong did dope however are haters of excellence."
I may be paraphrasing here.

 

[twothirds]

Sprocket, please explain why Armstrong was allowed to resume competition at the Tour Down Under when he had not then been back in the testing pool for the required 6 months? There's either a rule or there isn't. Now why do you suppose Pat McBent - oops, sorry, McQuaid - waived the rules for his great friend? Would it have anything to do with the $500,000 donation to the UCI? Rather like a 4 year PT licence application seriously considered on the basis of a phantom team led by a manager under contract elsewhere? Is it really surprising that eyebrows are raised when independent observers of the testing procedures raise important and difficult questions?

I like this quote. +1

 

[mitchman]

There's either a rule or there isn't. Now why do you suppose Pat McBent - oops, sorry, McQuaid - waived the rules for his great friend? Would it have anything to do with the $500,000 donation to the UCI? Rather like a 4 year PT licence application seriously considered on the basis of a phantom team led by a manager under contract elsewhere?

There is only one rule in life......it's the golden rule.

He who has the GOLD makes the rules...

 

[HoustonHammer]

Well I near as I can figure what he is saying is this.
"While there exists a certain amount of very compelling evidence that Armstrong did and does dope I still choose to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he does not dope. However since I do admit that some of that evidence exists that makes me an open minded fan of cycling and not an empty headed fanboy. All of those who choose the conclusion that Armstrong did dope however are haters of excellence."
I may be paraphrasing here.

Ahh, that hating excellence bit will never get old. Funniest post in quite a while. Thank you!!